Emailed to:
Al Gore (mailto:townhall@algore2000.com)
George Bush (contact@georgewbush.com)
Pat Buchanan (pat@gopatgo2000.org)
Ralph Nader (sjs@nets.com)
Tammy Baldwin (Tammy.Baldwin@mail.house.gov)

Mailed to:
Mr. Richard H. Anderson, 427 West Main Street #208, Madison, WI 53703
Mr. John Sharpless, 2114 Regent Street, Madison, WI 53705
Mr. Ralph Nader, Post Office Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036


Dear Candidates:


I have decided that who I vote for on election day will be decided by
the candidates' stands on what I see as the two major issues before us:

    1. The destruction of the environment.

    2. The elimination of outside influence on our governing bodies. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The destruction of the environment. 

Earth Day was planned and celebrated over 30 years ago. And
environmental issues were debated long before that. Since then, a number
of governmental programs have attacked individual problems -
chloro-fluorocarbons, recycling, endangered species list, among others.
Yet my perception is that the environment continues to deteriorate in
quality. In fact, I believe we are near the brink of disaster. Our
automobile 'population' has soared (and traffic in the cities is
horrendous). Lakes are polluted to the point we can't swim in them and
weed cutters rove like bandits. The ozone holes in the atmosphere
continue to increase. We talk about burying radioactive and caustic
wastes in vaults or casks that are expected to contain those wastes for
thousands of years. Does no on ever consider the devastating and
uncaring effects of war? of natural catastrophes? of terrorism? of just
plain forgetfulness (we can't even remember time capsules that were
buried 40 years ago)? The world's population is now some 6 billion,
expected to double in the next 40 - 50 years. How can we possibly
provide resources for all those people without further destruction to
our planet and its inhabitants? 

It's obvious to me that we are wrecking our beautiful planet. Isn't it
obvious to our governing bodies? Why can't they accomplish truly
significant reforms? Why does business have such a stranglehold on
environmental reform? There is more to life than economics, ladies and
gentlemen. Yet we continue to hear, again and again, that we have to
balance environmental concerns with business needs. What that philosophy
will accomplish, is the eventual destruction of our planet as a fit
place for us to live. And that's not the end of it. Our destructive
activities threaten other life, too - animals and plants. What right do
we have to destroy THEIR planet? 

We need a new philosophy regarding the environment. We can no longer see
ourselves as 'helping the environment'. Very little we do ever 'helps'
the environment. Our physical environment appears to be designed to help
itself. Yet each candidate presents himself or herself as a savior of
the environment. The best we can do is STOP THE DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITIES
we currently insist on engaging in. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The elimination of outside influence on our governing bodies. 

This, too, is an issue that has been around for many years. It is one
that makes complete sense to the voters. Yet it has been avoided by the
governing bodies. No solution is imminent. Even limited approaches to
this huge problem - the 'soft money' issue - have had to be fought for,
for years. The fight is renewed with every campaign, and every campaign
gathers and spends yet more money, gathering more and more influence
from non-voting sources, and the issue is put off until the next
campaign. I have little hope that this vicious cycle will ever be cut by
actions of our governing bodies. 

To debate honestly and often is to present yourself and your stand on
the issues to the voters, who can then decide whether you will meet
their expectations. This process is subverted when the candidates spend
huge amounts of time, resources, and money on wooing other influences -
corporate sponsors, self-serving television ads, endorsements from
groups. What it comes down to, ladies and gentlemen, in our democracy,
is that the voters are supposed to be the ONLY influence on your work in
the governing bodies. And the way I see it, a voter is one who can
actually vote for you; it can't be someone outside your country or state
or district or ward. So get to it: Concentrate entirely on convincing
your voters that your platform is the one that will work for them. You
can't do that by spending 90% or more of your time on rounding up
campaign financing and a tiny portion on dialog and debate with other
candidates. 

To accept resources of any kind from agencies outside your voting
district, is just plain wrong. If you do that, you are being supported
by agencies that your voters have no control over. And these outside
agencies now have some power that should be 100% in the voters hands. I
consider that a betrayal. What good is my one vote if it can be so
easily overridden by money and other influence? 

As for agencies within your voting district, none of them except
individual registered voters can vote. Construction companies can't
vote. Banks can't vote. Unions can't vote. Business associations can't
vote. The Republican and Democratic Parties cannot vote. Yet, by
accepting money and other resources from them, you give them a vote - a
much more powerful vote than I can ever give. So why do politicians
accept money from any agency other than voters? The only answer can be
that those politicians expect to be of some help to those agencies in
the future. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: 

I believe these two issues have to be solved. My primary concern is the
destruction of our environment. But as long as our governing bodies are
manipulated and controlled by agencies other than individual voters,
this destruction will not stop. Most of the outside agencies have little
interest in the environment, and they now have too much power for this
to happen. The only way our governments can provide meaningful relief to
this destruction, is to cut off influence from outside agencies. 

I no longer have much hope that government programs will ever succeed in
stopping the destruction of our environment or eliminating the
influences on their actions by anything except votes and voter opinions.
I will, however, continue to cast my vote for whichever candidate takes
a strong stand on these issues. 

I have little confidence in the governing bodies as a whole, when it
comes to remedying these two problems. A few Wisconsin members - Russ
Feingold, Herb Kohl, Fred Risser, Spencer Black come to mind - have made
a stand on these issues, but they alone have not been able to accomplish
the solutions. I can't complain much to these gentlemen, because they
are doing what I expect them to do. Yet the job is not being done, so
who DO I complain to? 

Any candidate who accepts money or other influence from anyone other
individual voters in the relevant district will not receive my vote. I
can't compete with that. 

Any candidate who does not take an uncompromising stand on stopping the
destruction of our planet will not receive my vote. Our descendants will
not be able to live with that. 




                                                    Sincerely,





                                                    Robert .....




- Lone Coyote Calls

 


Lonesome Coyote's home page
Email              Guest Book
Way out in the wilderness
a Lone Coyote Calls.
Your eyes fix on the shotgun
that's a-hangin' on the wall.

            - B Dylan
             Sign
             View

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Counter